I thought her big thing was being against free streaming services, and standing up for Indy labels against free streaming 🤔
But now she wants to make a few extra bucks after milking her previous stance, so her "principles" aren't that important anymore.
Also, this story is a nothing-burger. Apple Music did not "lose" anything, this was always going to happen eventually. They had it for a year which is a shitload of time.
How can anything be considered an exclusive over a year after it came out?
Age has no barring on exclusivity. In the early days of cable TV I remember all sorts of movies that had been on the big screen years or decades earlier get exclusive rights to be the only network/channel to broadcast that film.
In music it sure does. Everyone wants the latest. Who's hot, who's up and coming. Which is why people scramble for the newest album by Drake (for example). Having "the next big thing" for 30 days before anyone else is a big deal. Until the next artist comes along.
Someone mentioned The Beatles and Led Zeppelin. Not the same. The music industry has changed permanently. Taylor Swift, as popular as she is, won't be remembered 50 years later. To quote the lyrics of a Zappacosta song, "It's all been done before". There will never be another group like The Beatles that redefines music and has a lasting impact.
It's because everyone wants the latest that losing the exclusive on already issued material is not much of an issue. It would be an issue for the next release. While music was always a hit-driven business, back-catalog sales were huge and there were big hit albums that stayed on the charts for more than a year. That doesn't happen today. The anniversary Sgt. Pepper packages are the exceptions that prove the rule.
And while I agree that the music industry has changed permanently and that Taylor Swift probably won't be remembered 50 years from now, Swift (and Adele, among a few others) are among the few acts who can still sell physical product.
As I've posted before, the U.S. record industry is now a third of its former peak size, even including paid downloads, streaming and licensing (adjusted for inflation). It's really a disaster, especially ad-driven free streaming. The change from an industry driven by album sales back to one driven by singles is killing the business. It was different back in the 1950's and pre-Beatles 60's when an artist went into the studio and recorded 3 tracks in a four-hour session and singles listed for $1 and generally retailed for around 65 cents ($5.20 in 2017 dollars). Back in the 1920's, budget 78RPM singles on "race" labels sold for 75 cents ($10.50 in 2017 dollars) and most of those labels went into bankruptcy during the depression. The business is unsustainable today. It's great that consumers can get all the music they want for nothing or next to nothing, but it won't matter if the better artists don't issue recordings anymore because they can't make any money at it.
How can anything be considered an exclusive over a year after it came out?
Age has no barring on exclusivity. In the early days of cable TV I remember all sorts of movies that had been on the big screen years or decades earlier get exclusive rights to be the only network/channel to broadcast that film.
In music it sure does. Everyone wants the latest. Who's hot, who's up and coming. Which is why people scramble for the newest album by Drake (for example). Having "the next big thing" for 30 days before anyone else is a big deal. Until the next artist comes along.
Someone mentioned The Beatles and Led Zeppelin. Not the same. The music industry has changed permanently. Taylor Swift, as popular as she is, won't be remembered 50 years later. To quote the lyrics of a Zappacosta song, "It's all been done before". There will never be another group like The Beatles that redefines music and has a lasting impact.
On a related note, I find the flip-flop of people posting online to be quite funny. When Apple gets Taylor Swift as an exclusive it doesn't mean anything because her music is garbage. When they lose Taylor Swift it's suddenly a huge loss. Apple is doomed either way.
Arguing against a simple word like "exclusive" doesn't make you look good. And saying that no new music will ever be remembered is extremely ignorant, but even if that were true, it still doesn't affect the use of exclusivity said that he was a streaming music service. Definitions don't change because your view of music has changed.
Comments
It will be interesting to see if Swift new albums etc. appear as iTunes exclusives.
Also, this story is a nothing-burger. Apple Music did not "lose" anything, this was always going to happen eventually. They had it for a year which is a shitload of time.
And while I agree that the music industry has changed permanently and that Taylor Swift probably won't be remembered 50 years from now, Swift (and Adele, among a few others) are among the few acts who can still sell physical product.
As I've posted before, the U.S. record industry is now a third of its former peak size, even including paid downloads, streaming and licensing (adjusted for inflation). It's really a disaster, especially ad-driven free streaming. The change from an industry driven by album sales back to one driven by singles is killing the business. It was different back in the 1950's and pre-Beatles 60's when an artist went into the studio and recorded 3 tracks in a four-hour session and singles listed for $1 and generally retailed for around 65 cents ($5.20 in 2017 dollars). Back in the 1920's, budget 78RPM singles on "race" labels sold for 75 cents ($10.50 in 2017 dollars) and most of those labels went into bankruptcy during the depression. The business is unsustainable today. It's great that consumers can get all the music they want for nothing or next to nothing, but it won't matter if the better artists don't issue recordings anymore because they can't make any money at it.